*/
Blogging artist Isobel Williams on her work in the highest court in the land.
Since July 2012 I have been an occasional blogger-with-a-difference in the Supreme Court, with the court’s permission. The difference is that I illustrate my blog with drawings which I do on the spot; I rarely embellish them afterwards.
As far as the words go, there are plenty of lawyers who produce technical analyses of the proceedings. Being a non-lawyer, I riff on the general theme of the case, such as terrorism (R v Gul), harassment (Hayes v Willoughby) or pensions (Nortel and Lehman). Sometimes I go off on a tangent, as when drawing itself became my story in Bull v Hall.
Concerning the pictures, there are practicalities. I can’t use some of my favourite drawing materials – bamboo pens, wooden coffee stirrers, quills, sheep’s wool tufts – as they need to be dipped in ink. Splashing a bottle of that onto the multi-coloured carpet designed by Sir Peter Blake would not endear me to the authorities. Similarly, I have to avoid the noisy friction of extravagant sweeps across textured paper.
Like the Derby, the Supreme Court is on the flat – no elevated jury, no witness box – so from the public seats it’s about the backs of heads and chairs, with the justices far away across the howling tundra. How do you deal with that? Sometimes I experiment with transparent outlines. In the drawing of R v Hughes (opposite), the justices are pink ectoplasm, the staff and judicial assistants orange. Opera glasses are an option I am yet to explore.
In each courtroom, discreet amplification emphasises every breath, every rustle, every moment of nervous tension. In the stark white box of Court 2, the plushy floral curtains aren’t enough to insulate counsel from the relentless scrape of the minute hand on the slate clock or the finality of the omega on the court emblem. It’s all right for me – I can just sit here scribbling and ingerpainting with compressed charcoal while fine minds deal in cool abstractions.
So which is more important, the art or the text? The answer is neither: it’s the Supreme Court itself. One day when I noted some choice aperçus from the bench, a tweeter put me in my place by recommending my blog post ‘not for the drawings, but brilliant comments from Baroness Hale’.
Isobel Williams, Blogging Artist
Posts are on www.isobelwilliams.blogspot.com (click on the ‘Supreme Court’ label) and on www. ukscblog.com, the independent blog about the Supreme Court run by Matrix and Olswang.
Isobel is an artist, blogger and PR consultant. She draws at the Supreme Court and other
challenging locations, including the Occupy camp outside St Paul’s.
As far as the words go, there are plenty of lawyers who produce technical analyses of the proceedings. Being a non-lawyer, I riff on the general theme of the case, such as terrorism (R v Gul), harassment (Hayes v Willoughby) or pensions (Nortel and Lehman). Sometimes I go off on a tangent, as when drawing itself became my story in Bull v Hall.
Concerning the pictures, there are practicalities. I can’t use some of my favourite drawing materials – bamboo pens, wooden coffee stirrers, quills, sheep’s wool tufts – as they need to be dipped in ink. Splashing a bottle of that onto the multi-coloured carpet designed by Sir Peter Blake would not endear me to the authorities. Similarly, I have to avoid the noisy friction of extravagant sweeps across textured paper.
Like the Derby, the Supreme Court is on the flat – no elevated jury, no witness box – so from the public seats it’s about the backs of heads and chairs, with the justices far away across the howling tundra. How do you deal with that? Sometimes I experiment with transparent outlines. In the drawing of R v Hughes (opposite), the justices are pink ectoplasm, the staff and judicial assistants orange. Opera glasses are an option I am yet to explore.
In each courtroom, discreet amplification emphasises every breath, every rustle, every moment of nervous tension. In the stark white box of Court 2, the plushy floral curtains aren’t enough to insulate counsel from the relentless scrape of the minute hand on the slate clock or the finality of the omega on the court emblem. It’s all right for me – I can just sit here scribbling and ingerpainting with compressed charcoal while fine minds deal in cool abstractions.
So which is more important, the art or the text? The answer is neither: it’s the Supreme Court itself. One day when I noted some choice aperçus from the bench, a tweeter put me in my place by recommending my blog post ‘not for the drawings, but brilliant comments from Baroness Hale’.
Isobel Williams, Blogging Artist
Posts are on www.isobelwilliams.blogspot.com (click on the ‘Supreme Court’ label) and on www. ukscblog.com, the independent blog about the Supreme Court run by Matrix and Olswang.
Blogging artist Isobel Williams on her work in the highest court in the land.
Since July 2012 I have been an occasional blogger-with-a-difference in the Supreme Court, with the court’s permission. The difference is that I illustrate my blog with drawings which I do on the spot; I rarely embellish them afterwards.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
